http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=158758673

Cliffb reverted as "sockpuppet of banned user". Nevermind that a quick wikipedia review of Cliffb's editing reveals no such thing.

Samiharris is out of control.

Good thing tag teamer Gary...er...um...Mantanmoreland is there to revert, so "samiharris" doesn't get a 3RR.

I am starting to suspect The Wikimedia Foundation and/or some of its major donors to be involved in the naked shortselling of overstock.com

There was a report on BBC NEWS that suggested that naked short selling might be responsible for the current financial crisis....

You're right. This is deeply corrupt and something needs to be done. Like... yesterday. Once someone like Cliffb gets reverted as a Wordbomb sock puppet by stooges, then the situation has clearly gone way too far.

I haven't paid much attention to this business, but it is obvious now that Mantanmoreland, who as far as we know is still protected by shadowy admins at WP, is given carte blanche to manipulate the public's perception of naked short selling via the use of wikipedia. Why? I'd like to know.

Somey recently concluded that Gary Weiss was largely the reason the Review exists. Weiss and Chip Berlet, who is also given special protection on WP for reasons that have never been explained, have debased any ideals other WP editors might have had when they embarked on editing. Of course, we all know the name of the high profile female Canadian admin who implemented this duel protection racket. Again, why? I don't know.

Attempts to rfc these situations, and bring them to eyes of "the community" have been immediately deleted and silenced. See this and this if you don't believe it. Why? I don't know.

Well, Weiss is a financial journalist and Wales used to work in the Chicago financial markets...

Can proof be found that the two knew each other in real life?

Considering Weiss is an author of several books on financial trading and the mafia (don't forget Wales had an interest in that too) I find it unlikely they did not know of each other.

I really doubt they knew each other before WP. I don't doubt that Jimmy got to know lil GW, his outside voice, and some of lil GW's rich friends, and some of lil GW's "you want bad publicity or good publicity?" writer friends about the time that Jimbo gave Cla68 the finger on the Weiss affair.

Word on the wikistreet says that lil GW whips out the lawyer routine on websites that dare speaketh old film noir movie names in the same paragraph as Monsignor Weiss, so Jimbo probably got to know lilGW's ambulance chaser's outside voice too in the Cla68 affair.

This thread has a doppelganger tonight, Somey/Guy whoever probably needs to merge it.

Where's the doppelganger thread you mention? This one?

Lundberg's "paid to edit" thread. Getting paid to write would be a rare occasion for lil GW lately.

I wouldn't go quite that far - WR was started before Weiss even appeared on Wikipedia, from what I gather. What I would say is that the combined influence of Weiss and Berlet has been so disruptive and divisive - and these two people are extremely good at that, probably better than any of us here could ever hope to be - that the need to expose their malfeasance, for the good of Wikipedia and the collaborative web in general, has led to WR's being branded an enemy site. After all, don't forget that when WR first started, Erik Moeller himself was a regular poster. Even Dave Gerard posted here a few times... Not that most of us really miss those guys, of course. But their accounts are still active!


At one point I had a theory which suggested that the folks in the SlimVirgin "cabal" felt that Berlet was useful because he was a leftist with a penchant for bashing other leftists. So, if they wanted to make a POV assertion somewhere in favor of, say, Israeli militarism, and include citations showing support from both "left" and right, they simply had to ask the ol' Chipster to write something up - and presto-bingo, a ready-made reliable source! And if they wanted to bash someone like Noam Chomsky for the same reason, Chip would be up for that too. In return, Chip's personal bio would always read like hagiography, in spite of the efforts of folks like Nobs et al to inject non-hagiographic (to say the least?) material.

I know it sounds a little elaborate, even for them... but if Berlet actively offered his services in that area, then who would they have been to refuse?

Isn't it a little bit of an amazing coincidence that they are both involved in financial markets and both obsessed with the mafia? Even if they didn't know each other before I am sure Wales came to know of Weiss once he published his books on mafia links to Wall Street and would therefore be much more likely to do him a favour by letting him own certain articles.

That would certainly explain this monstrous addition to the "encyclopedia" from New Anti-Semitism, where Berlet is quoted on 4 paragraphs at the beginning of perhaps WP's most controversial article. Slim made 1,835 edits to that article, Jayjg a further 950. And it was their collective need to smear a whole political class that set off the "Israeli Apartheid" multi-article chain reaction that was to be Jayjg's ruin. It also provoked the Allegations of State Terrorism in the United States fiasco as well, as editors furious with the exploits of SV and co got revenge on chosen targets. So just the volume of shame these people have inflicted on WP knows no bounds.

Berlet is absolutely full of crap. He is the one dreaming up conspiracy theories to try and explain why people on the left have dared to criticise Israel. There is a simple reason for that, in that they no longer fall for the propaganda that some of the left once fell for i.e. that Israel was a wonderful socialist paradise where everyone could live in wondrous harmony on the kibbutz, along with the other "comfort fact" that the Palestinians were just Arabs who came from somewhere else and therefore had no real right to live there so it was OK to kill them/take their land etc.

I worked on a kibbutz many, many years ago.

Harmony my foot. I found myself shackled with racist South Africans - ended up breaking some guy's nose and simply slunk off the rest of the time.

Anyway, the theme of this meme is the weird and not so wonderful protection provided for messrs Weiss/Mantamoreland and Bertlet. An old tune I know, but we always have new listeners tuning in, so it's always worth revisiting to fill dead airtime.

Chip Berlet is known for two main themes in his career, at least since the 1980s. Before the 1980s he was regarded as a more conventional leftist, but since the 1980s he has spent a lot of energy criticizing both the left and the right.

One constant theme of Berlet's is that the LaRouche organization is cultic, fascist, and dangerous.

The second theme is that leftists who demonstrate an interest in conspiracy theories are a discredit to other correct-thinking leftists, and are dangerously close to rightists who spout conspiracy theories. Whether these leftists that Berlet criticizes are evil or just stupid, is something that Berlet hasn't quite decided yet. (This includes all conspiracy theories, even well-researched ones such as the 1960s assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK.)

As an alternative to what Berlet regards of "conspiracism" among progressives, he has embraced political correctness in its most perverted form — the "identity politics" that has been funded from above. The Ford Foundation, with its close connections to U.S. intelligence, started pumping money into women's studies, Black studies, and Chicano studies in the early 1970s. McGeorge Bundy was president of the Ford Foundation when this began. Today the Ford Foundation is funding Berlet's group, which was founded by a bunch of trust-fund feminist types back in the early 1980s. (The Wikipedia bio on McGeorge Bundy is very understated on his intelligence connections. For example, William Bundy, his brother, was in the CIA the entire time, and the Ford Foundation worked rather closely with the CIA during the 1950s.)

Berlet has also worked with the Anti-Defamation League in order to research rightists. He's pro-Israel.

I believe that the "identity politics" that emerged in the 1970s was funded from above as a means of countering the "power structure research" that was beginning to become popular among New Left veterans. These New Left veterans like myself were almost all white males, who figured out very early that U.S. policy in Vietnam could not withstand scrutiny at any level whatsoever. A connection was becoming evident between U.S. corporate capitalism and U.S. foreign policy. The same people were running both. (It's easier to make this point now than it was a few years ago. All you have to do is look at U.S. policy in Iraq.)

The white male U.S. New Left was crushed by "identity politics" in the 1970s. It only took a few years before the feminists chased us out of our offices. We were left in the street with a confused look on our faces, hanging on to our research files, and muttering phrases such as "interlocking corporate directorates."

Now here's a conspiracy theory that you can play with:

Jayjg in his RfA said that he was in his 40s and works in management. Might he be referring to financial management?

Lyndon LaRouche says a lot of things that don't make any sense to me. Much of this has to do with the philosophy of science. However, in the one area of international finance, I have been following him and I respect his opinions. Beginning in 1993, LaRouche and his organization have been speaking out on the topic of Wall Street derivatives, and how they threaten to push the international monetary system over the edge. This is still a huge topic, and I believe we'll be hearing much more about this in the next few years. The LaRouche people have been saying things about the greed on Wall Street that Wall Street doesn't want people to hear.

Berlet on Wikipedia has been protected by SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Slim might be someone's agent and so might Jayjg. Slim has also been protecting Gary Weiss on Wikipedia.

I suspect that people in high places know that the international monetary system is a house of cards. If and when it collapses, the last thing these people want is to discover that a few hundred editors on Wikipedia are trying to connect the dots and figure out who is responsible. These people in high places are using cabalists like Slim and Jayjg to make a preemptive strike that intends to "tame" Wikipedia on certain sensitive topics. Naked short selling sounds ugly to me, just like derivatives sounds ugly. Things that make Wall Street look ugly must not be allowed on Wikipedia, according to people in high places. I think Jimbo knows what's happening, but I don't think he started it. This goes higher than Jimbo.

Thanks for the explanation, Daniel, this stuff has always been a blurr to me.

I dimly grasp that Betting On Derivative Stocks (BODS) is really just an excuse for Some People to have a good time playing Legalized Lotto with Other People's hard-earned pension funds.

So maybe if you can explain the relation of Naked Shorts to BODS there will be some hope that I can put a few pieces of the puzzle together.

Thanks In Advance (TIA¬CREF) —

Jonny

To American leftists criticism of Israel is not the result of embracing conspiracy theories. It is a result of no longer being able to ignore the actual nature of the Israeli state and its treatment of the Palestinians. The American occupation of Muslim states and anti-war ties forged between leftists and Muslim people speaking out for their family members plight has done much to bring this about. It is not done with any great joy, but it is becoming, for the first time, a real consensus on the American left. Berlet will isolate himself by baiting leftists as antisemites and adherents to crank right wing theories.

This blurring is in full flow now. This strange confusion. I looked at your Mighty Wurlitzer page devoted to the CIA, and I could have recited some of the material backwards regarding people like Dulles. You can trace him from Guatemala City to the Bay of Pigs without much of a struggle and none of it comes close to a theory of any sort, they are verifiable truths. But when you get a Muslim youth from the same neighbourhood as the London 7/7 bombers telling you that American servicemen were raping women in Bosnia - and that happened to me quite recently - that's when you need to step in and correct a few things.

Some stuff has mountains of significant evidence to back it up. Other stuff doesn't. And we should always start with the evidence. Not the conclusion.
See this post by me, and how a certain WP POV begins to fits together. I'm making a joke of it there, but there is a point to my sniggering.
That's pretty much the case elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Traditional movements built on union solidarity became splintered by identity politics and I'm glad someone has brought that up. I wouldn't blame any particular faction, but in retrospect, one can't help thinking that people were duped by what were deliberately divisive ideas. It seems obvious now that this fracturing served only to atomise just about everyone, to the benefit of the wilfully unscrupulous. Now, the champions of identity politics dominate the mainstream of public life, reaping massive personal rewards. Whilst traditional socialist communities lie in ruins having never recovered from the 1980s.
Might be. Could be. But nah. Personally, I'd need to see evidence of the actual owl before I go out at night again and reply to the hooting. I'm still pretty sure it'd be another guy hooting back at me. Not an owl.

Here's someone else's summary of this "Naked Shorts to BODS" business, if it helps Jonny. I don't know how accurate it is as this subject is Chinese to me, but The Review gets a mention.

http://cfaille.blog-city.com/a_tangled_web..._weiss_blog.htm

I will interject here, as I have in the past when you raised this theory, that I don't believe that Berlet was ever a leftist in any legitimate sense. See below.




I think that you are generally on the right track here, but let me suggest a slightly different approach. One of the appealing features of the Marxist version of leftism was the notion of a universal human identity, defined by a shared interest in the general progress of humanity. The purpose of "identity politics" was to annihilate that notion, along with the notion of progress, and replace it with a Hobbesian battle of competing particularist interests.

I've been trying to get my mind around this idea ever since DB recently voiced it. It might have great value. My biggest problem is that it ignores the role Black revolutionary organizations in 60s, especially Malcolm type nationalists and the Panthers. There is empirical evidence, in the form of body counts that that these folks were not part of any plot to co-opt a wider social movement. They in fact often played a leadership and inspirational role in the most dynamic aspects of the New Left. I suppose you could say that these Black revolutionary were not pursuing identity politics at all, but were addressing racism (along with the Vietnam War) as one of the central concerns of the entire left. I'm not saying that DB idea is without merit, but it needs to incorporate this reality.

What happened to class struggle? I guess LaRouche isn't too hot on class consciousness, but Marx sure was, and so am I. It's the ruling class that interests me, and my identification with the U.S. Left disappeared as identity politics completely undermined class consciousness.

For example, the feminists in Berkeley in the mid-1970s, where I was in grad school, were slightly interested in class consciousness in terms of the history of the labor movements of previous decades, but they were more interested in Women as Superior to Men. Now you have split class consciousness into four classes: female working class, female ruling class, male working class, male ruling class. It does not compute when you do this, and more than a few idiotic feminist dissertations were written. Curiously, they all got their PhDs, while the Marxists were stopped cold by the System.

There was only a brief period of about two years where you could get away with studying Marxist philosophy in grad school in the 1970s Berkeley. It got suppressed, in the many subtle and not-so-subtle ways that grad students in a PhD program get suppressed by faculty committees. Now add the Ford Foundation with its millions underwriting the feminists et.al., and that's the end of class consciousness in academia.

Which meant the end of class consciousness everywhere in the U.S., since academia was the last holdout for any sort of Marxist perspective.


The early ones were something of an inspiration. By the time the Panthers came along, they were rather thoroughly infiltrated by agents, in addition to the fact that some of the Panther leadership were media sensations on an ego trip, more than they were leaders with a genuine social vision.

Nevertheless, all Ford Foundation had to do was to slip some money to the Black Students Union on various campuses, earmarked for this or that community program, and they all started fighting over the funds.

It was the same story with the feminists. The final coup for the ruling class was to force affirmative action into the private sector by fiat from above. Poof, all class consciousness disappeared immediately, and everyone except working-class white males, who were not eligible, started scrambling for the crumbs tossed out by ruling-class white males.

This statement was challenged and the resulting posts were moved out of public view by Kato, a moderator. Thank you for your time.

I did this because I am a Neo-Nazi, Jew-hating bastard who hates you. Either that, or you launched into a tedious offtopic dispute that was moved to the tarpit with the agreement of all (with the exception of you it seems). Those members wishing to have a heated debate about Israel are welcome to go join Jorge and Emperor at this link:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12982

Those wishing to discuss the predominant ideologies of protected members of WP, without accusing each other of "hate speech", stay tuned to this channel.

I was responding to a false and inflammatory post that was already off-topic. If the rest of you really think my response belongs in the tar pit, fine, but I expected that I would be able to place a humble two-line explanation here without being abused.

Already discussed. Now where were we?

Yes. The particular POV of Gary Weiss that has managed to dominate certain articles, and by extension, Chip Berlet who has managed to get his POV into countless articles. This obvious conflict of interest is in sharp contrast to the aggressive attitude shown to someone like Mark Devlin, as detailed in the linked thread. And Ted Frank. All four of these people are writers who edit WP. Two of them are closeted, two of them are not. And in at least three of these cases, those deciding who among these writers are in breach of C(onflict)O(f)I(nterest) and who are not have been the same few people. People otherwise known here as "the cabal".

LaRouche was interested in class consciousness up until the mid-70s when he discovered the works of Henry Carey and others, what was called the American System. Carey wrote The Harmony of Interests, where he theorized that under a competent economic policy, i.e. one that emphasized constantly rising labor productivity due to better education and the introduction of better technologies, class struggle would disappear. As Ted Kennedy once said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." However, LaRouche emphatically did not lose interest in what you have called "power structure research" -- he describes the existence of mafia-like financial elites which exercise more power than elected governments, particularly via control of quasi-private central banking. He uses terms like "oligarchy" (common among Spanish-language commentators as oligarchia) or "synarchism." LaRouche regards these factions as committed to a policy of "primitive accumulation," increasing profits by gouging the living standards of the workforce, cutting entitlements, outsourcing, disinvesting in education and infrastructure -- does any of this sound familiar? -- basically, a revival of fascist economics, as opposed to the "Harmony of Interests" model.



The Black Power people essentially destroyed the movement of Martin Luther King, which was a human rights movement of the universal sort that I mentioned. However, LaRouche was successful in recruiting some of the brightest people from the Panthers and many other New Left groupings, and was seen as a real threat by the Ford Foundation and others who were promoting Identity Politics (also known as "Divide and Conquer.") It is ironic that they sent Chip Berlet after him to label him racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, ad nauseum, because the LaRouche organization has always been run by a regular Rainbow Coalition of blacks, Jews, women, and every other sub-grouping you could imagine. However, they refer to their outlook as "humanist."

Thanks, Hersch. I agree that the LaRouche organization is very diverse, and I agree that LaRouche is keen on power structure research. Another organization that's the target of Berlet and his sidekick Dennis King, the Lenora Fulani/Fred Newman organization, is also very diverse. Both the LaRouche and Fulani organizations have some very bright people in them.

I had never heard of Henry Carey before. This helps explain LaRouche's technological optimism, as well as his persistent interest in the philosopy of science. He has always been in favor of nuclear power, and I believe LaRouche supported the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"). I tried to look up Henry Carey in Dennis King's horrible anti-LaRouche book, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (1989), which enjoyed funding from the spooky Smith-Richardson Foundation and the League for Industrial Democracy (two intel-connected foundations), and research assistance from the Anti-Defamation League. But there was no mention of Carey in King's book, and that's touted as the most complete book on LaRouche.

Still, I think LaRouche is much too optimistic about technology. The differences between British capitalism and American capitalism, up until the time that Carey wrote, are probably better explained by Frederick Jackson Turner in The Significance of the Frontier in American History.

My bias is due to the fact that I had an American-history teacher in high school in 1963-64 who plugged Turner, and he was a rather hard grader. You don't find history teachers like that anymore in public high schools — the students are all copying and pasting from Wikipedia. My term paper for that class was on the Great White Fleet that Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world. I had to use original sources, which meant I had to spend hours at the Los Angeles Public Library downtown, reading old newspapers that concurrently described the trip.

Those sources aren't on the web yet. So much for high-tech. And I only got a B+ for that term paper!

Technology — leading horses to water and letting them crap in it.

Jonny

I haven't read Turner, but I note that LaRouche is not an admirer: "Contrary to U.S. Romantics such as Frederick Jackson Turner and Teddy Roosevelt, the set of ideas on which the U.S. was premised, was not something specific to the physical conditions of the U.S. frontier life; the ideas came, almost entirely, from the greatest traditions and minds of "old" Europe's Greece-rooted Classical tradition."[1] My view is that the differences between British capitalism and American capitalism are revealed, in essence, by the American Declaration of Independence -- economics is politics. Hey -- here's an excerpt from a great quote from Carey:



I remember a personal experience of my own, a heated discussion with some of my fellow environmentalists/technological pessimists back in the '70s. I asked the following: if nuclear fusion power could end the genocide in the Third World, then didn't we have a moral obligation to develop it? My friends angrily said that we should not. I recall that as a point where I began to re-evaluate some of the views that I held at that time -- and to look for some new friends.

I think that if Karl Marx were alive today, Berlet would be penning character assassinations against him, branding him "conspiracist" for all the things he says about the capitalist class.




I would add that there is a hefty effort to suppress any discussion of possible alternatives to present, failed policies. Will Beback, another major collaborator of the Chipster, went nuts trying to censor the article American System (economics,) which since my departure got transmogrified and redirected.

I can see how the Chipster shouldn't be seen as a "leftist" in the sense of traditional economic class-division issues. But identity politics isn't completely unrelated to the class struggle, either - due mostly to one of the more peculiar aspects of American politics.

That is to say, one thing we've failed to note so far is that Chippy does seem concerned with the increased power of the Religious Right in the USA, who he refers to as "Christers," which he seems to think is a less connotative and offensive term than "fundamentalists." (Not sure I agree...) This is certainly a good example of identity politics, but one can't deny that these "Christers" are largely responsible for keeping the conservatives/Republicans, and therefore corporate, interests in power, simply by voting for them.

So, at the risk of seeming to defend him, he might still have some affinity for non-ruling class folks, but realizes that (at least in the US) religion is spoiling the equation. Those same people are voting against their economic and social interests because their religious leaders are telling them they'll go straight to Hell if they don't, and they're believing it. If any credence can be given to that idea, then it could be said that he's operating under the assumption that the "Christers" have to be led away from the extreme/Christian right before any progress can be made on redressing the deepening economic class imbalances that plague Western society in general, blah blah blah.

I'm not sure that excuses his tendency to bash other leftists for being "conspiracy nuts" (or whatever) under the slightest pretense, though. Also, the "Christers" might not be needed in future for voting purposes, what with the Diebold Corporation now having so much control over US elections.

No, it's a ridiculous term. And of course the relationship between religion and politics in the USA is quite complex. The evangelicals and Baptists tend to be solidly right-wing and the Methodists solidly left-wing (with a few notable exceptions of course). Episcopalians (roughly the same as Anglican or Church of England) used to be the WASP establishment, but lately they've gone overboard on feminism and support for gays, to the point where conservative Anglicans such as those in Nigeria are threatening to throw them out of the communion. Catholics are all over the place, and there are ethnic issues (Irish, Polish and Mexican Catholics each have their viewpoints).

Not that there's anything wrong with bashing Marx...

Funny how people often don't appreciate the endearing little terms their adversaries come up with to fairly describe them.

In American Methodist are evenly split between those who accept the concept of social gospel (United Methodists) and very conservative Christians (Southern Methodist.) I believe the rift goes back to the issue of the abolition of slavery debate before the American Civil War. Anyways, I was taught that Methodist were Baptists, who by the grace and direct intervention of God, had been taught to read.

Good one, but no.

The issue is a bit muddy here. The Republicans have no monopoly, nowadays, on corporate corruption. Why do you suppose the leadership of the Democratic Party continues to block any move to impeach Cheney, even though the polls indicate a majority of Americans support it? The unprecedented fundraising prowess of Barack and Hillary comes largely due to the generosity of the hedge funds.

Having said that, it is also the case that Chip hates the fundies because they in turn hate the gays, abortion, and so on. I have seen no evidence that he cares a whit about economic justice, and it is absolutely forbidden to suggest that any grouping, including "corporate interests," has disproportionate power. That would be tantamount to a conspiracy.

Yeah... in Chicago, Democrats have tuned lies and corruption to a fine art...
For the ignorant, here is some example of St. Obama's dirty angel's wings and a taste of whats instore for Obama.
Taste of Obama's best bud and more of the same

The link of Berlet's financial support coming from a Chicago commodities trader beginning in the mid 1980s was made in Scrutinizing the Scrutinizers By Dr. Lenora Fulani, September 20, 1994. Excerpted,
Who is Richard Dennis? According to Wikipedia,
Both Richard Dennis and Chip Berlet were born in Chicago in 1949.

Perhaps more significantly, the WP article reveals that "He is the president of the Dennis Trading Group Inc. and the vice-chairman of C&D Commodities, a former chairman of the advisory board of the Drug Policy Alliance, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute." So he's on the drug legalization team, along with Chip's former employer High Times, as well as on the Randroid/libertarian bandwagon with the Cato Institute (and Jimbo.)

Just for you, HK, here's some more (excerpted):

You say that like there's something wrong with it.

Jimbo's bio says, "From 1994–2000, Wales served as research director at Chicago Options Associates, a futures and options trader in Chicago." By 1994, Richard Dennis made his millions and got into other ventures. And there is a semi-generational difference between the two. But it may be safe to speculate that Jimbo was a protege of either his book or his "turtles", as Dennis's bio says,

So if you were 28 years old and going to work on the Chicago commodity exchanges, you'd probably follow in the footsteps of the most recent self-made millionaire legend from the same environs. While Dennis went on to purchase and advise Presidents, Jimbo was starting up a dot com business. Meantime Berlet hooked onto the Richard Dennis gravy train.

This is starting to flesh out rather nicely.

With the Badsites/harrassment nonsense (ever read the Madness of Wikicrowds?) over and the poor "victims" satiated and put into Wikialias Protection Programs (how ya doin, Sunsplash?), it appears that that old crucible of Wikipedia Conflicts of Interest, Autobiography, and Administrative Favoritism Over a Chip/Fry Slight, the Gary Weiss article, has been opened up for an RFC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165437487

That Cla68 indicates is to be played out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...r_comment/Cla68

Looks like some folks think Patrick Byrne's BLP deserves equal weights of the good and the bad, but Gary Weiss's promo just requires the good only. New York Times, New York Post (OK, that one is an utter waste of paper), Julian Robertson, BusinessWeek (ironically Gary's bitter ex-love) et al be damned....I'd put better than even odds on more reliable sources in this article's future rearing their heads.